The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. The number of Associate
Justices is currently fixed at eight (28 U. S. C. §1). Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the
United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III, §1, of the
Constitution further provides that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services,
a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."Read more

The Supreme Court is moving toward a full and free-access system for all documents filed in cases before the Justices — a system expected to be working "as soon as
2016," Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., revealed in his annual year-end report (2014)...

5. For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file
shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why
an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances. The application must
clearly identify each party for whom an extension is being sought, as any extension that might be granted would apply solely to the party or parties named in the application. For the time and manner
of presenting the application, see Rules 21, 22, 30, and 33.2. An
application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored.

SCOTUS Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices

1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has
authority to grant the sought relief.

2. The original and two copies of any application addressed to an individual Justice shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.2, and shall be accompanied by proof of service as required by Rule 29.

3. An application shall be addressed to the Justice allotted to the Circuit from which the case arises. An application arising from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces shall be addressed to the Chief Justice. When the Circuit Justice is unavailable for any reason, the application addressed to that Justice will be distributed to the Justice then
available who is next junior to the Circuit Justice; the turn of the Chief Justice follows that of the most junior Justice.

4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon. Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by law to the Circuit Justice or is untimely under Rule
30.2, the party making an application, except in the case of an application for an extension of time, may renew it to any
other Justice, subject to the provisions of this Rule. Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk,
designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29.

5. A Justice to whom an application for a stay or for bail is submitted may refer it to the Court for determination.

6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.

Updated: Justice Antonin Scalia delivered his standard defense of originalism in a speech on Tuesday that included an unusual observation about the
justices’ stance on capital punishment: Scalia said he "wouldn’t be surprised" if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the death penalty.

Scalia told students at Rhodes College he has four colleagues who believe the death penalty is unconstitutional, reports the Memphis Commercial
Appeal. The Associated Press also covered the
speech, but did not include Scalia’s death-penalty remarks.

In a June dissent by
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he called for a briefing on whether the death penalty is constitutional. "I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates
the Eighth Amendment," Breyer said in the dissent.

Two days after Scalia’s speech, Pope Francis called for abolition of the death penalty in a speech to Congress. Four Supreme Court justices sitting in the audience,
including Ginsburg, did not applaud or visibly react, the Washington Post reports. The other justices in attendance on Thursday were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor.

Scalia said in his speech that justices on the current Supreme Court are "terribly unrepresentative of our country" and noted the only justice from the South is
Clarence Thomas. The other justices are from California, New York and New Jersey. "Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution?" he asked.

The recent same-sex marriage decision, Scalia said, was the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants."

Scalia said the idea of adding freedoms to the Constitution isn’t "always good, unless you’re an anarchist." The trick, he said, was to balance freedom with
order.

Michael Morton (born August 12, 1954) is an American who was wrongfully convicted in 1987 in a Williamson County, Texas court of the 1986 murder of his wife Christine Morton.[1] He spent nearly 25 years in prison
before he was exonerated by DNA evidence which supported his claim of innocence and pointed to the crime being committed by
another individual. Morton was released from prison on October 4, 2011; the prosecutor was convicted of contempt of court for withholding evidence after the judge had ordered its release to the
defense.[2][3]Read more

Okay, cases where Justice Scalia contends actual innocence is not sufficient to overturn a death sentence conviction, or stop an execution.

Juan Melendez (right), a former death row inmate who was exonerated, listens to testimony during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
on June 12, 2002, in Washington, D.C. Melendez sat on death row in Florida for almost two decades before a court finally overturned his murder conviction. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

"Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that Herrera’s constitutional argument had "elemental appeal" but declined to endorse it because
federal courts were not supposed to "relitigate state trials." Herrera’s true remedy, Rehnquist said, rested with the president or the governor of his state, whose power to grant clemency was the
"fail safe in our criminal justice system." Entertaining actual innocence claims brought years after the fact were simply too "disruptive" and unfair to the state, which needed to have things settled
once and for all. Rehnquist mused that even if one assumed, hypothetically, that an innocence claim could be brought, the bar for the prisoner to clear "would necessarily be extraordinarily
high."

"Concurring in judgment, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone even farther. Taking issue with the majority’s mere hypothetical entertainment of
an innocence claim, Scalia wrote: "There is no basis, tradition, or even in contemporary practice for finding that in the Constitution the right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered
evidence of innocence brought forward after a conviction." He concluded, "With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again."...

Lawyers need to move beyond ‘access to justice’ to close the legal services gap

By many measures, lawyers’ "access to justice" initiatives are entirely ineffective:

• A study (PDF)
from the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services found that high-volume state courts are at "saturation level" of pro se litigants.

• According to the 2012-2013 World Justice Project’s Rule of Law
Index (PDF), more than four out of five low-income litigants in the United States go it alone because they feel priced out of the legal market.

• Almost 60 percent of small business owners who had a legal issue did not hire a lawyer for that problem according to a study (PDF) done by legal insurance provider Legal Shield.

• A recent study by the Administrative Office of the Courts found that pro se bankruptcy filings are increasing twice as fast as overall filings.

• U.S. District Court’s 2012-2013 data (PDF) shows that 10 percent of nonprisoner federal court filings are now pro se.

• And there a really large and growing list of online document services and sites that individuals are using to do for themselves what lawyers could be doing for
them.

But don’t blame lawyers. They’re trying. ABA Model
Rule 6.1 says they should render at least 50 hours of pro bono public legal services every year. Also, while it has seen its funding decreased somewhat in recent years, the Legal Services
Corporation receives more than $300 million each year to deliver legal resources to the underserved.

So what’s wrong?

Expanding legal services access beyond the poorest and most disadvantaged is a significant challenge. Attempts to bring similar types of services and resources to
large numbers of people—from infrastructure to transportation to medical care—have been tremendously expensive and time-consuming. Doing the same for legal services will certainly be a unique
challenge.

Lao Tzu said: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." And one good initial, but admittedly small, step for legal services is semantics. Specifically,
instead of talking about an "access to justice" gap let’s switch the rhetoric and consider the "access to legal services" gap instead.

Many modest means or middle-income individuals seeking legal services are not seeking "justice" through the legal system. Most just want a will, an estate plan, some
limited advice on their employment contract or business, or any number of other things that don’t have anything to do with "justice." Besides what justice is and what it means varies widely from
person to person and situation to situation. aThe pursuit of an arguably amorphous definition of justice is a waste of time and resources when all someone wants is, for example, a will.

Modest-means clients are also different than the access-to-justice clients. For one, while they may not be able to afford traditional full representation legal
services but they can pay something. Further, many modest means clients are middle-income individuals, so they’re more likely better educated with better access to technology or other resources that
would help them self-educate, receive unbundled legal services delivered partially or fully though technology or online, or navigate the legal system with only limited guidance from an
attorney.

Under the traditional "access to justice" model, access-to-services clients would receive extensive one-on-one attention from an attorney to address their legal need.
And at no cost.

This is staggeringly inefficient. While one-on-one representation may be ideal for true miscarriages of justice, the lack of a will or even someone to review your
employment agreement is not a miscarriage of justice. It may not even involve justice. Further, there’s no reason not to let those who can pay some to do so.

But let’s not confuse the justice and services problems by using the same term for both.

There are pervasive legal access issues throughout the economy—from pro se litigants, to entrepreneurs who need business help, to families without wills or simple
estate plans. This access gap is a significant problem for the legal profession and it won’t be solved overnight. It might not even be solved in our lifetime. But greater precision in how we talk
about access challenges is an easy first step in the right direction.

Dan Lear is currently director of industry relations for Avvo. As a technology-focused business lawyer, he advised companies from startups to the Fortune 100 and
helped develop agreements and terms for early cloud services offerings. In 2015 he was named to the FastCase 50 list—and in 2014 Dan was honored with the Washington State Bar Association President’s
Award for his participation in and and advocacy of legal technology projects locally and nationally.

Editor’s note:The New Normalis an ongoing discussion
between Paul Lippe, the CEO of Legal OnRamp, Patrick Lamb,
founding member of Valorem Law Group and their guests. New Normal contributors spend a lot of time thinking, writing and speaking about the changes occurring in the delivery of legal services. You’re
invited to join their discussion.

SCOTUS justices should reveal their votes on cert petitions, law prof argues

The U.S. Supreme Court should announce the vote tallies when it accepts or rejects cert petitions, a law professor argues.

Writing in the New York Times, Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher argues that the court should "lift the veil
of secrecy that shrouds" its decisions to hear cases by announcing how each justice votes on each cert petition.

The court gets about 8,000 cert petitions each year, but only about 75 cases are selected for hearing.

"These votes are more consequential than anything said at oral argument," Fisher writes. "If some justices regularly vote to hear appeals from corporations and never
from employees, the public ought to know this. If others often vote to hear petitions from civil rights groups but never from state or local governments defending their policies, the public should
know this, too."Read more

Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court at 10 years

WASHINGTON — Three years into John Roberts' tenure as chief justice of the United States, the Supreme Court ruled by one vote that the Second Amendment protects the
right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Seven years later to the day, the court ruled — again by one vote — that the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Leaning right on guns but left on gays, right on race and religion but left on health care reform, the Roberts Court reaches its 10-year anniversary this week at the
fulcrum of American public policy, culture — and politics.

From the court's landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that allows unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns to its razor-thin
ruling that upheld President Obama's signature health care law, the high court under Roberts has struggled to balance a strict reading of the Constitution and federal statutes against the pressures
of politics and public opinion.Read more

Some federal judges continue working despite senility. One federal appeals court is so divided that the opposing factions won’t eat lunch together. Some law professors
are "refugees" escaping from more competitive or less lucrative fields.

Those are some of the criticisms expressed by Judge Richard Posner in an upcoming book set for release in January, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports. The book, Divergent Paths, is touted as an examination of
the gap between the judiciary and law schools, but it is more of a critique of the two branches of the legal profession, according to the Law Blog.

Posner, a judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, spends "hundreds of pages detailing the shortcomings of judges, law professors and students,"
according to the Law Blog. It obtained a review copy of the book and highlighted eight "provocative passages." They include:

"Some federal judges do not work very hard, and for reasons unrelated to age or infirmity. It’s not so much that they don’t put in the hours; it’s that they tend to
treat the job as a civil service sinecure and duck the intellectual challenges that face a federal judge ….

"Not being subject to compulsory retirement and able to delegate much of their work to staff, federal judges sometimes fail to retire even when old age and its
related ills have greatly impaired their judicial performance. To be blunt, there is a problem of judicial senility and it is growing with the general increase in the longevity of the American
population."

"Sometimes the members of an appellate court don’t get along with each other—which is not actually a big surprise, when one bears in mind the resemblance of an
appellate court to marriage in a culture of arranged marriage with no divorce. Lack of collegiality may be expressed in snarky or even intemperate dissents and concurrences, in judges’ nitpicking of
the opinions of colleagues even when agreeing with the analysis in those opinions, in slow voting on opinions circulated by the other judges, in rivalry; in professional jealousy. … In one of the
federal courts of appeals today the judges of opposing factions will not eat lunch together."

"The increase in the number of law schools has caused a reduction in the average quality of law school graduates and a concomitant reduction in the average quality of
lawyers who practice in the federal courts. And the increased size of law school faculties has resulted in an increased number of the faculty members whom I’ve termed ‘refugees’ from more competitive
or less lucrative fields and who have little interest in the actual judicial process and little ability to contribute to that process."Read online

Supreme Court Approval Rating Drops to 25-Year Low

Only 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the U.S. Supreme Court, down from a previous low of 57 percent in 2005 and 2007.

The favorability rating is at its lowest point in 25 years, according to a press release on the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll was conducted in April after the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the
constitutionality of the health care law.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats and independents give the court favorable ratings. (Others in the survey identified themselves as having no
party preference, members of other parties, or "leaning" toward Democrats or Republicans, according to a questionnaire summary.)

Among supporters of the health-care law, 52 percent have a favorable view of the Supreme Court. Among the bill's opponents, 55 percent view the court favorably.Read more

Every nation has a creation myth, or origin myth, which is the story people are taught of how the nation came into being. Ours says the United States began with
Columbus's so-called "discovery" of America, continued with settlement by brave Pilgrims, won its independence from England with the American Revolution, and then expanded westward until it became
the enormous, rich country you see today.

That is the origin myth. It omits three key facts about the birth and growth of the United States as a nation. Those facts demonstrate that White Supremacy is
fundamental to the existence of this country.Read

On the dayBennie Coleman lost his house, the day armed U.S. marshals came to his door and ordered him off the property, he slumped in a folding chair across the street and watched the vestiges of his 76 years hauled to
the curb...because he didn’t pay a $134 property tax
bill.

60 Minutes' Steve Kroft Talks To Carl HiaasenIn a little less than a
century, the state of Florida has been transformed from a largely uninhabited swamp to the fourth-largest state in the union. And no one has written about that transformation more successfully than
Carl Hiaasen.

Carl Hiaasen on Florida:

"The Sunshine State is a paradise of scandals teeming with drifters, deadbeats, and misfits drawn here by some dark primordial
calling like demented trout. And you'd be surprised how many of them decide to run for public office."

In 1902, 140,000 miners went on strike, wanting higher pay, shorter work hours, and better housing.....Roosevelt...use[d] the military to run the mines in the "public
interest". The mining companies...accepted the demands of the UMW...more﻿﻿

Presidential Library and Museum

Pro labor: Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much higher consideration.Abraham
Lincoln pro labor quote﻿

Todayeconomic slaveryhas many people indebt chains. Economic or debt slavery ismore efficientfor its masters than the slavery of the Old South. Debt slaves must
feed, house and clothe themselves. Thedebt slave masters, thebanks,credit card companies, and even student loan providers, all rely upon the courts and justice system for enforcement of debt. When economic slaves can’t pay back their debt, they are told to get a second job. Or a third job.

Meanwhile, when thewell-connected mastersof economic slaves get in a financial bind, and
bring our economy to the brink of collapse, they call on politicians in Washington, DC for bailouts.Bankers don’t get second
or third jobs, they get million-dollar bonuses.

Theeconomic slave mastershave access to the best lawyers, sympathetic judges, and sheriff’s
deputies ready to haul the debt slave to court, or throw him and his family out of their
home and into the street. Does anyone see a problem with thisscenario? Where is the John Brown for today’sdebt slaves?﻿

The State Department's top spokesman resigned Sunday, three days after criticizing the Pentagon for its treatment of [Manning]...P.J. Crowley, the assistant secretary of State for public affairs, told a group at [MIT]...that the Pentagon's treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning was "ridiculous and stupid and
counterproductive." His comments were made public by a blogger who attended the session.More here, and Politico, andThe Washington
Post

FORTY years ago today, The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers, a seminal moment not only for freedom of the press but also for the role of
whistle-blowers — like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the papers to expose the mishandling of the war in Vietnam — in defending our democracy.Read more﻿﻿

Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in
Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.Read
more﻿

"I really don't like the term 'PTSD,’” Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Shay told PBS' "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" in 2010. "He says the diagnostic
definition of "post-traumatic stress disorder" is a fine description of certain instinctual survival skills that persist into everyday life after a person has been in mortal danger — but the
definition doesn't address the entirety of a person's injury after the trauma of war. "I view the persistence into civilian life after battle," he says, "... as the simple or primary
injury." Dr. Shay on YouTube

Dr. Shay has his own name for the thing the clinical definition of PTSD leaves out. He calls it "moral injury" — and the term is catching on with both the VA and the
Department of Defense.

Moral injury, Dr. Shay says, can happen when "there is a betrayal of what's right by someone who holds legitimate authority in a high-stakes situation."read more

The Marine Corps, the most male of the armed services, is taking its first steps toward integrating women into war-fighting units, starting with its infantry officer
school at Quantico, Va., and ground combat battalions that had once been closed to women.

Stars and Stripes exists to provide independent news and information to the U.S. military community, comprised
of active-duty, DoD civilians, contractors, and their families. Unique among the many Department of Defense authorized news outlets, only Stars and Stripes is guaranteed First Amendment privileges
that are subject to Congressional oversight.﻿ Go to the website

Our motto: "FIGHTING FOR THE TRUTH. . .EXPOSING THE CORRUPT" is our battle cry! We go after, not only pompous brasshats and as COL. David Hackworth so ably put it -
the "perfumed princes" like Gen. Wesley Clark - but Gestapo-like MP's, CID, NIS, OIS and other alphabet agency "bully boys" who ignore the Constitution of the United States and the right to Due
Process.﻿

Major Heather Penney recounts the drama in the skies after District of Columbia Air National Guard pilots scrambled to intercept incoming hostile planes. She
describes why F-16’s initially took off from Andrews Air Force Base unarmed – and what she was prepared to do to bring down a plane piloted by terrorists. And she recounts how later that day she
helped escort President Bush and Air Force One back to Andrews Air Force Base.﻿ C-Span
Interview

Information on this website is a free public service. While the information on this site deals with legal issues, it does not constitute
legal advice. If you have specific questions related to information available on this site, you are encouraged to consult an attorney who can investigate the particular circumstances of your
situation.

Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, this website does not warranty or guarantee the accuracy or
availability of the content on this site or on other sites to which we link.

In no event will this website be held liable to any party for any damages arising in any way out of the availability, use, reliance on or inability to use this website
or any information provided by or through this website, or for any claim attributable to errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in, or destructive properties of any information provided by or
through, this website.

Neil J. Gillespie:
1. Does not give legal advice.2. Not a lawyer.3. Not an attorney.4. Not licensed to practice law.5. Did not go to law school.

______________________

Seven Year Anniversary - YouSue.org to NoSue.org

Seven years ago I started the Justice Network with the domain name YouSue.org. This name was chosen in the spirit of YouTube, the video-sharing website that
empowered ordinary people to produce and share video.

Through this website I have met folks from all over the country. Some of their stories are profiled here. Many have reached the conclusion that America’s justice system is broken.

The official Justice Network Internet address is now NoSue.org. This reflects the sad truth that for most Americans the justice system is broken, just a parody of justice. Reform American courts or
avoid them. Your life, health and wealth is at risk. But don’t just take my word, listen to the experts on this site.

The stories, images, and videos on this website are in the public
domain, or featured here under the fair use doctrine if copyrighted. I claim no credit for images posted on this site unless noted. If there is an image on this site that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear, E-mail with a link to the image and it will be removed.